Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne believes the new federal guidance on prayer in schools serves as a pathway to further purge K-12 of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Horne said the administration’s characterization of speech compulsion made it clear that DEI presented an impermissible threat to religious freedoms.
“The new guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education states that ‘No public school, teacher, or school official should ever coerce or press a student to engage in speech or affirm a viewpoint that would violate the student’s sincere religious beliefs,’” said Horne. “Numerous DEI precepts violate widespread religious beliefs, such as urging students to change genders, age-inappropriate sexual lessons, and other elements that may demean a student’s religious beliefs.”
Horne clarified that the new guidance doesn’t permit schools to coerce religious expression, either. Both the superintendent and the guidance cited the 2025 Supreme Court decision, Mahmoud v. Taylor, which found that public schools mandating curriculums endorsing homosexuality and transgenderism were violating religious freedom.
“No public school, teacher, or school official should ever coerce or pressure a student to engage in speech or affirm a viewpoint that would violate the student’s sincere religious beliefs,” stated the guidance. “[A] public school cannot require a student group to adopt a particular viewpoint in order to be recognized by the school if the viewpoint violates the student members’ religious beliefs. School officials also cannot express hostility toward religious student groups by demeaning their beliefs.”
The guidance, issued last week, addresses the issue of DEI elements in the context of requirements under federal law to advise on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. This updated version replaces the last guidance issued under the Biden administration in 2023.
Horne offered a marked copy of the guidance highlighting key new provisions across the four parts of the nine-page guidance.
In order to receive federal funding, local education agencies (LEAs) must certify in writing to the Arizona Department of Education (AZED) by Oct. 1 every year that none of their policies prevent or otherwise deny participation in constitutionally protected prayer in public K-12 schools.
AZED will establish processes by which the LEAs provide that certification and by which complaints may be filed against noncompliant LEAs. AZED must also send a list of noncompliant LEAs to the Department of Education by Nov. 1.
Presently, AZED requires LEAs to answer on Critical Race Theory and DEI as part of public reporting of school grades to assist with parental choice in schools.
“We will add this question to our list and report answers not only on our website, but also, as required, to the federal government,” said Horne. “Those with unsatisfactory answers to this question will then be deprived of federal funds.”
The guidance further clarified that the Trump administration’s perspective on religious freedom within schools was unlike the “wall of separation” view undertaken by previous administrations. It cited the most recent Supreme Court decision on prayer by school officials, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which found that a high school football coach had a right to engage in prayer on the field after games.
“This is not the familiar but legally unsound metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ between religious faith and public schools,” stated the guidance. “It is rather a stance of neutrality among and accommodation toward all faiths, and hostility toward none, deeply rooted in our nation’s history, traditions, and constitutional law — a stance that upholds our Constitution’s ‘recognition of the important role that religion plays in the lives of many Americans.’”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona is debating SB 1018, a bill that defines Sharia law as “foreign law” for purposes of Arizona statute. For many people, this raises understandable questions. Is this necessary? Is it constitutional? Is it fair? And is it really about Islam?
Those questions deserve serious answers, not slogans.
At its core, this debate turns on a simple but critical distinction: Does the law regulate belief, or does it regulate what our courts will enforce? The Constitution protects belief absolutely. It does not require the state to enforce religious rules as civil law.
That line has long been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia summarized it plainly when he wrote that religious belief does not excuse individuals from compliance with neutral laws of general applicability. In other words, you are free to practice your religion, but the law applies equally to everyone.
SB 1018 does not criminalize prayer, worship, charity, fasting, or personal religious observance. Muslims in Arizona, like people of all faiths, remain fully protected in how they live and practice their religion. What the bill addresses instead is jurisdiction: whether Arizona courts should ever recognize or excuse conduct under a foreign legal system when that conduct violates Arizona law or constitutional rights.
Opponents often argue that raising this issue is “Islamophobic.” But that claim deserves closer examination. A phobia is an irrational fear. What is being discussed here is not fear. It is documented legal outcomes. International human-rights organizations, including the United Nations, have repeatedly documented that in many Sharia-based legal systems, women and children face outcomes that would be unacceptable under American law: forced or underage marriage, unequal legal status, discriminatory custody rules, and punishments that violate basic standards of bodily integrity and due process.
This is not a statement about Muslims as people or about Islam as a faith. It is a statement about how certain legal systems operate when religious doctrine is treated as enforceable law. Unlike personal religious observance, Sharia has historically functioned in many countries as a comprehensive civil and family law system, governing marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance, and punishment.
Why should Arizona hesitate to say—clearly and without apology—that practices such as honor-based violence, female genital mutilation, and child marriage are not welcome here, regardless of where they may be accepted elsewhere? These are not abstract concerns. They are real harms, and the primary victims are overwhelmingly Muslim women and girls. Protecting them is not bigotry; it is basic human decency.
In several countries that apply Sharia-based family law, custody and guardianship rules subordinate the best interests of the child to rigid doctrinal standards, often disadvantaging mothers in divorce. Arizona’s refusal to recognize or excuse such outcomes is not hostility toward faith; it is solidarity with women and children whose rights deserve protection everywhere.
This is where some well-meaning voices hesitate. They worry that naming Sharia law singles out a religion. That concern should be taken seriously, but it should also be addressed honestly. The purpose of SB 1018 is not to judge theology. It is to make clear that Arizona recognizes only one system of enforceable law: the Constitution and the laws enacted under it.
Courts already do this in practice. They refuse to enforce contracts obtained through coercion. They reject foreign judgments that violate public policy. They do not excuse violence, abuse, or the denial of equal protection because someone claims a cultural or religious justification. SB 1018 seeks to clarify that principle, not invent it.
The cautionary example often cited is Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” ballot measure, which was struck down by the courts. That case matters, but it is frequently misunderstood. Oklahoma’s measure failed because it appeared to condemn a religion itself, rather than focusing on harm or enforceability. The lesson is not that states lack authority to protect constitutional supremacy. The lesson is that laws must be carefully drafted, neutral in application, and focused on conduct, not belief.
Arizona can do better by learning from that history.
No statute can reach into private rooms or compel victims to come forward. That is true of laws against child abuse, domestic violence, and human trafficking. But the fact that wrongdoing can be hidden has never been a reason to leave the law ambiguous about what the state will tolerate or excuse when harm does surface. This law does not end religious practice; it ensures that when harm occurs, no religious or cultural rule, of any kind, can be used to justify it.
This debate should not be about fear, and it should not be about faith. It should be about clarity.
Arizona can affirm two truths at once: that religious freedom is a foundational American value, and that no one’s rights, safety, or bodily integrity are negotiable under the law.
For those reasons, SB 1018 deserves support as a clear, careful affirmation of equal justice. Arizona should set the rhetoric aside and stand with those who bear the real-world consequences.
Shiry Sapir serves as the First Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Arizona.
A proposed bill in the Arizona legislature would require members of the clergy to report any crimes admitted to them in confession.
The bill by Minority House Whip Stacey Travers, HB 2039, would expand the duty to report to religious leaders, specifically naming clergymen, priests, and Christian Science practitioners. Travers attempted to run the bill, without success, for every legislative session since coming into office in 2023.
Religious leaders would be held liable in a civil action should they fail to report not only ongoing but any potential future abuse of minors that has yet to occur. This failure to report would kick in if “reasonable suspicion” exists that “dependency, physical injury, abuse, child abuse, or abandonment is ongoing or that dependency, physical injury, abuse, child abuse, or abandonment may occur in the future.”
The bill would also remove the requirement for religious leaders to obtain consent from the individual making their confession before reporting to authorities.
“A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has knowledge or a reasonable suspicion that a person is committing or may commit child abuse or neglect shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer, to the Department of Child Safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. This subsection does not apply to a confidential or penitential communication unless the member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest determines that the abuse or neglect is still occurring or will occur in the future.”
Punishments would vary depending on the proposed violations.
Those who fail to report a reportable offense (sexual offenses outlined within 13-1401 through 13-1430 of Arizona Code; obscenity; furnishing harmful items; surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming, or digitally recording or viewing a minor; child sex trafficking; incest; or unlawful mutilation) would be charged with a class six felony.
All other violations of the bill would qualify as a misdemeanor.
Congressman Andy Biggs, a Mormon, said he was not shocked that a Democratic lawmaker was behind the bill.
“A terrible attack on Catholics in Arizona by, of course, a Democrat,” said Biggs. “This bill should never see the light of day.”
A terrible attack on Catholics in Arizona by, of course, a Democrat. This bill should never see the light of day.
When Travers first introduced the proposed bill in 2023, she said it was Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or LDS) who asked her to file it following the case of a Bisbee man, Paul Adams, who continued to rape his daughters for years after confessing his crimes to a Mormon bishop. Adams’ suicide brought his crimes to light.
“I picked up the mantle because I had LDS constituents come to me,” said Travers in an interview with Capitol Media Services.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A new report from the Center for American Institutions (CAI) at Arizona State University (ASU) has revealed that faith-based organizations are playing an “integral role” in addressing housing and food insecurity, addiction, at-risk youth, and more.
The report on “Religion, Charity and American Life,” is entitled A Thousand Points of Light Still Shine and was compiled with survey and research data from the CAI with feedback from faith leaders Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and Rabbi Pinchas Allouche.
In a press release, CAI wrote, “While often overlooked, volunteers from congregations of many faiths feed, clothe, and support our communities, according to the report. They collect and distribute food. They help with rent and utilities and point people to additional organizations that can assist. The authors of the study said it can be seen as a call to action and a reminder of the necessity to affirm the religious liberty necessary to make way for these institutions to do this life-sustaining support and outreach.”
The report noted that in the metro Phoenix area, Jewish Family and Children’s Services is known for providing treatment for illnesses, mental health problems, and drug abuse. It also assists people with food insecurity, offering nutritional assistance and even dental referrals. The Living Streams Church’s food pantry of Central Phoenix feeds approximately 5,000 people per year working Mondays through Thursdays. The Catholic St. Vincent de Paul conferences, small groups of volunteers within local parishes, conduct food deliveries to needy people within their parish boundaries.
A Jewish temple located in Phoenix doesn’t operate a food pantry but rather its members contribute their time and money to two nearby pre-existing food pantries. The CAI observed that other congregations, such as a Disciples of Christ Church in Phoenix, also contributed to nearby pantries.
Looking further, the report found that 86% of food pantries in Detroit, Michigan, that are found on findhelp.org are faith-based with many housed-on church property and run by volunteer staff. CAI also found that four of the seven “best” drug addiction treatment centers in the Detroit metro area, as reported by Addiction Resource, are also faith-based.
The report notes that the role played by faith-based groups in combating food insecurity is crucial.
“Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing number of Americans are caught in a squeeze. As food prices skyrocketed, along with other basic needs like transportation, housing, and energy, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps) did not keep up. In a 2023 survey conducted by Feeding America, the largest American charity focused on food insecurity, 65 percent of food banks reported increasing demand. Food pantries, meanwhile, found that food inflation meant their contributions did not go as far as they did pre-pandemic, even as lines at their doors grew longer.”
The study also drew attention to the dangers of the heat to the homeless during Arizona summer finding, “Summer in Phoenix can be deadly without access to water and cooling. Alongside public hydration and cooling stations, faith-based groups go to homeless camps and distribute water and necessities. For example, St. Vincent de Paul has trucks that make the rounds to places where homeless people congregate to hand out water, food, and supplies. On a smaller scale, Sunnyslope Ministries of Hope distributes water in central Phoenix most every summer evening, along with personal care items and shoes. Also, in Phoenix, Young Single Adult groups from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) congregations take part in distributing aid to the homeless.”
Rabbi Pinchas Allouche, Founding Rabbi of Congregation Beth Tefillah, also contributed to the report writing, “Faith-based organizations are the lifeblood of America’s moral fabric, calling each of us to fulfill our God-given responsibility to heal the world. Through acts of goodness and kindness, we can restore faith in humanity and remind the world that light can dispel even the thickest darkness. This call to action can propel readers to reflect on how they, too, can contribute to making the world more divine through small yet powerful acts of goodness and kindness. It will also highlight the importance of treating each other with respect, as God’s children who are all part of God’s human family.”
The commission made four key recommendations based upon the collected data:
Faith-based organizations need to do a better job of informing the general public of these programs. On a community level, faith-based organizations should consider creating a collective website to report on their activities.
Greater media attention needs to be driven by individual churches, synagogues, temples, and faith-based charities to newspapers, the media, and social media about the stories of individuals who have benefited from their programs. Americans love success stories.
Media itself should give more attention to the importance of faith-based charities and programs in their communities.
Americans need a better understanding of religious liberty, as embodied in the First Amendment. This should begin in the classroom. State legislators and school boards should require that time be given in the classroom to the foundational concept of religious liberty in American life.
Professor Donald Critchlow, Director of the Center for American Institutions at ASU, explained, “Religion is under unprecedented attack on multiple fronts, with growing secularization, declining attendance, and hate-filled attacks on people of faith. And yet, as this report illustrates in vivid detail, volunteers from various religious congregations are still showing up for those most in need in their local communities.”
He added, “The irony is that while faith-based organizations are more active in our communities today than at any time in modern American history, these good works coincide with a rise in hate crimes.”
The Scottsdale legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) won a religious freedom case at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
SCOTUS ruled 6-3 at the end of June in 303 Creative v. Elenis against Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), as unconstitutional. The law would prohibit a Christian wedding website designer from refusing to create a same-sex wedding website.
The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, holds the Christian belief that marriage exists only between one man and one woman, and contests against the possibility that she either must produce content that “contradicts Biblical truth,” such as same-sex marriages, or cease business.
Ultimately, SCOTUS determined in a majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch that Smith’s creative expression constituted speech and that CADA therefore violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
“Ms. Smith’s websites will express and communicate ideas — namely, those that ‘celebrate and promote the couple’s wedding and unique love story’ and those ‘celebrat[e] and promot[e]’ what Ms. Smith understands to be a marriage,” stated Gorsuch.
"This is a victory not just for me, but for all of us. Whether you share my beliefs or disagree with them, free speech is for everyone. And the government shouldn’t force anyone to say something they don’t believe. The Court’s decision means we are all more free today than we… pic.twitter.com/wXHqZgAWL2
— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) June 30, 2023
Gorsuch further criticized CADA for its fullest possible outcome: compelling speech of all manners and kinds from any commissioned person if their customer belongs to a CADA-protected class.
“Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait,” said Gorsuch. “Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The Court’s precedents recognize the First Amendment tolerates none of that.”
Smith does have LGBTQ clients; however, Smith won’t create content that runs counter to her beliefs.
After the SCOTUS ruling, ADF CEO and lead counsel Kristen Waggoner stated that differences of beliefs don’t constitute discrimination.
“Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it,” said Waggoner. “As the court highlighted, her decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never on who requests it. [T]he government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly reaffirmed that the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe. The court reiterated that it’s unconstitutional for the state to eliminate from the public square ideas it dislikes, including the belief that marriage is the… https://t.co/9BtiPg0skn
Following the ruling, critics alleged that Smith fabricated a request for a same-sex wedding website after a news article insinuated she did. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser also derided Smith’s complaint as “a made-up case without the benefit of any real facts or customers.” ADF and Smith rejected those claims.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
